Along with same sex "marriage," adoption of children holds a prominent place on the homosexual agenda.

Although the first "right" was dealt a severe blow with referenda banning same sex "marriage" in 13 states, the adoption of children by homosexual activists is almost imperceptibly moving forward.

We will deal with this aspect of the homosexual offensive after delving into the issue of adoption as such.

RESTORING NORMALITY

In general, children who are up for adoption find themselves in traumatic or abnormal situations. Many have lost both parents while others have parents who are separated or impoverished. All too often the child was conceived out of wedlock or in promiscuous and fleeting relationships.

The well-being of these children depends upon taking them out of such irregular circumstances and placing them in one as close to normality as possible.

Addressing this problem, Christian charity gave rise to the institution of orphanages, where abnegated souls, inspired by religion, sought to provide poor children without parents with an atmosphere of stability and tender loving care favoring their physical and moral development.

For their part, generous and often childless couples adopted children, providing them with a family and establishing emotional bonds at times as strong as blood kinship.

A CHILD IS NOT AN ADULT'S "TOY"

Whether a child is one's own or adopted, he should never be seen by adults as a toy, pastime or "property" to which one is "entitled." True, the child is under the authority of his natural or adoptive parents and owes them respect, obedience and love. However, as an intelligent and free being endowed with personality, he cannot be considered a "thing" to be used merely for self-satisfaction. The child's moral and physical being cannot be sacrificed merely to benefit his custodians.

To every right corresponds a duty. When it comes to begetting or caring for children, this duty is to ensure the latter's moral and material well-being.

Therefore, although begetting or adopting children gives rise to a legitimate satisfaction, this satisfaction is not the ultimate end of such acts. This end is the noble task of collaborating with the Creator in the propagation and rearing of the human species.

History and universal common sense attest to the fact that a home sanctified by marriage between a man and a woman provides the ideal conditions for this upbringing.

The child needs this protected environment since that which makes a child so enchanting is precisely what makes him so vulnerable: extreme affectivity, intense emotionality, rich imagination, unlimited confidence in those he loves, and a total openness to outside influence.

These are fundamental elements to a child's process of learning and formation. The child assimilates knowledge mainly by what he sees and hears from parents, siblings, and other relatives. When poorly directed, the child can suffer irreparable moral and psychological damage.

THE UNREAL WORLD OF HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERSHIPS

Given the unnatural character of homosexual relations, a homosexual partnership lacks the moral and even psychological conditions to ensure a child's adequate development. The child is raised in a surreal, artificial ambiance, not to speak of the amorality that will profoundly affect his personality.

Examples of children raised in these conditions are now starting to come to light.

In 1999, homosexual activist Dan Savage published the book, The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant - An Adoption Story. The author comments:

"Having children is no longer about propagating the species... [it is] something for grownups to do, a pastime, a hobby. So why not kids? Gay men need hobbies, too. . I've done drag. I did Barbie drag, dominatrix drag, nun drag, and glamour drag. Now I'm going to do dad drag."1

What future awaits a poor adopted child raised in such an atmosphere?

Rosie O'Donnell, well-known TV anchor and lesbian activist with several adopted children, commented on the confusion in the mind of her adopted son:

"[M]y son has said to me, he's almost seven, you know, 'I wish we had a daddy.' I said, 'I understand that. I can imagine that you would. And this is the kind of family that has two mommies because that's how mommy got born, that I love another mommy, not a daddy.' And he gets it, and he knows that most families have a mommy and daddy and that our family is different and that some people don't think it's right that two mommies or two daddies have children. He knows that as well."2

The message this child received is that homosexuality is genetic, a mere variant of human nature, and that for born homosexuals a family with two mommies or two daddies is normal. Such a conclusion is absolutely false according to all present scientific data.

The child is also asked to make a moral judgment. The anchor's qualification that some people don't think it is right fails to provide elements for the child to judge. In fact, given his lack of maturity and need for affection, the child will naturally accept the position of his adopted mother more than that of another.

Deep down, and without judging intentions, this is a form of emotional blackmail: if you love me as your mother, you cannot accept the assertion of those who say having two mommies is wrong.

GROWING UP CONFUSED

In a recent article, "Growing Up With Mom and Mom," published in the October 24 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Susan Dominus tells the story of two girls, Ry and Cade, who were artificially conceived and raised by a lesbian couple.

The story of these girls could not be more poignant. Having reached adulthood, one daughter became a lesbian and the other, though heterosexual, lives in a continuous state of tension between her formation and her own feelings. Dominus writes:

"Sometimes when she's with her boyfriend, she [Ry] told me the first night we met, 'I feel guilty about how much privilege I feel as a straight couple, but I also love the privilege. . At the same time, it's like this nightmare to be totally absorbed into this stupid straight world.' She made a face, half-sticking her tongue out. 'So at the same time, it's sad for me. I feel like I'm losing something else.''

She narrates her intimate struggle:

''It took me a lot of struggle to realize that I really was attracted to men, yet now it is really hard for me to deal with men as human beings, let alone sexually.'' Further on, Ry reports about how she was intrigued but ''repulsed'' by heterosexual relations, afraid of the 'sexist soul-losing domain of oppression.' Her parting thought: 'I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a healthy straight relationship.'"

"SCIENTIFIC ACTIVISM" AT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Such confusion in the minds of children raised by homosexual partners should cause grave public concern. However, several professional health and counseling associations have published statements favoring the homosexual lifestyle and their adoption of children in an expression of what some have called "scientific activism."

One such statement was recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Rhea Farberman states in the journal, Monitor on Psychology that no research shows that "same-sex couples should be denied marriage rights" and that a "review of the literature calls for joint and second-parent adoption rights for gay parents."3

Dr. A. Dean Byrd, a member of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), contests the APA's assertion that the resolution is based on the recommendations of researchers studying same-sex families:

"Consider those who were appointed to the committee: Armand Cerbone who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 Beverly Green, editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Kristen Hancock who developed "Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients"; Lawrence A. Kurdek, Editorial Board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Psychology and Candace A. McCullough-- whose partner, Sharon Duchesneau, was artificially inseminated from a deaf sperm donor to make it highly likely that their children would be born deaf because of their belief that deafness is not a medical condition but a cultural identity! 4(McElroy, 2002).

"The committee members were hardly an unbiased group!"

Dr. A. Byrd also criticizes the Committee's reliance on the research of Charlotte Patterson whose studies were questioned and subsequently thrown out by a Florida Court. That Court concluded: "Dr. Patterson's impartiality also came into question when prior to trial, she refused to turn over to her own attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in studies. Dr. Patterson testified as to her own lesbian status and the Respondent maintained that her research was possibly tainted by her alleged use of friends as subjects for her research."5 (1997, June Amer, Petitioner v. Floyd P. Johnson, p. 11)

In an official statement of June 17, 2004, the American Medical Association said: "our American Medical Association supports legislation and other efforts to allow adoption of a child by the same-sex partner or opposite sex non-married partner who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child."

Psychiatrist Dr. David Fassler praised the AMA resolution as evidence that "the AMA is moving away from a conservative agenda and into areas where policy is based on science."

However, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH contested the statement saying:

"To say that one side of the debate is based on politics, and the other one on science, is a false presentation of the debate. Values issues are at the heart of all of these matters - how each research study is designed, how its results are interpreted, even how we define the very concepts of mental health and illness. Neither side can ever say it simply represents 'science.'"6

Dr. Fassler's pro-homosexual bias is manifested in his support for Gay-Straight Alliance clubs on junior high and high school campuses. The homosexual publication, The Data Lounge, further reports:

"Dr. David Fassler, a Vermont psychiatrist who works with teens, told The Globe there is nothing wrong with encouraging teens to explore their emotions and attractions, though parents may heatedly disagree. 'The experimentation in itself doesn't determine someone's sexual orientation,' he said. . 'I think it's important for schools to do everything they can to support these kids during the high school years.'"7

NO UNBIASED RESEARCH FAVORING HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING

Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D. rigorously evaluated the studies favoring to adoption by homosexuals. The result of their research was compiled in a book titled No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting.8

In an interview with National Review, Dr. Lerner summarized the methodological errors contained in such studies claiming that the research purporting to show that the sexual orientation of parents' makes no difference in child outcome is seriously flawed. Dr. Lerner affirms these studies have the following errors

: "- Completely misconstrue and thus blatantly misuse the standard logic of statistical hypothesis testing (e.g., they attempt to affirm the null hypothesis, which is wrong; one can only fail to reject the null hypothesis)

- Fail to use proper or even any control groups (e.g. Charlotte Patterson Bay Area study)

-Use wildly unrepresentative nonrandom samples

- Use far too few cases to draw any valid conclusions

- Fail to control for essential variables when presenting their findings

- There is only one study that has any kind of follow-up. This particular study misanalyses its own data, which in fact show that the daughters of lesbian couples are more likely to engage in lesbian sexual experimentation as adults than are the daughters of heterosexual couples. This effect is probably understated since the authors lump together heterosexuals who are married with those who are cohabiting

- The above study is the only one which included adult data; findings based on young children are inadequate for talking about the development of adult behavior and identity

- None of the studies in question is a study of gay adoption; the children studied are either the natural children of one partner or result from artificial insemination. This limits the generalizability of the studies, even assuming they were valid otherwise."9

The study, Staying 'True to the Research' on Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting, by Glenn T. Stanton and Geremy F. Keeton of the organization Focus on the Family provides countless quotations from specialists corroborating Dr. Lerner's views.

For example, Steven Nock, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, who has also reviewed existing literature on the issue, concluded:

"[The current literature on lesbian parenting] is inadequate to permit any conclusion to be drawn. None had a probability sample. All used inappropriate statistics given the samples obtained. All had biased samples. Sample sizes were consistently small . I do not believe this collection of articles indicates that lesbian and heterosexual mothers are similar. In fact, from a scientific perspective, the evidence confirms nothing about the quality of gay parents."10

NO VOICE FOR CHILDREN

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the whole homosexual adoption issue is the fact that the children have no voice in the matter.

They are suddenly immersed in a subculture advocating an amoral unnatural lifestyle. The child is further deprived of either a mother or father and left to navigate in a surreal world of gender confusion. His own physical security is jeopardized by a subgroup fraught with much greater incidence of social disease and other health problems.11

All this is accepted in the name of a political correctness that is based on false premises and pseudo-science. Many in the scientific establishment seem intent upon engaging in a kind of "scientific activism," not unlike the judicial activism of liberal judges, which forces through an agenda contested by the facts and established scientific method.

Such activist experiments can only harm the innocent child and take him away from the traditional family, the only proven atmosphere of stability and tender loving care favoring the child's physical and moral development.

Very detailed summary of homosexual adopting/parenting. Why studies that say it's just as good as a married mother and father are flawed. This is a biggie, and there are some revealing quotes from homosexuals about their desire for children.

The desire for children is very natural, but the desire to "enjoy" having them is extremely selfish. Their legitimate needs come before any prospective "parent's" selfish personal desires.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

4
posted on 12/15/2004 10:59:48 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)

I've had a look at some of the books on the subject, all are partisan as hell and even my non-scientific mind immediately picked up on the fact that the cases being cited were obviously screened beforehand, i.e. no objective statistics about gay couples w/children who came a cropper. No, only the happy-happy, joy-joy stories. And even then, there were none involving children who had grown to adulthood.

So, two homosexuals adopt a little boy and years later he's sexually abused by his "mommy" or his "daddy" and we, society, is supposed to be shocked? We, as a society, should be ashamed for putting this kid in that environment in the first place.

Perverts don't deserve the right to pervert other people. If they are so selfish that all they think about is their perversions they should NEVER have the opportunity to spoil another life. No adoptions for the gay/lesbian/transsexual/bisexual/trans gendered crowd. They chose their life, don't be malignant and spread it to innocent children.

8
posted on 12/15/2004 11:29:50 PM PST
by timydnuc
(I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees.)

Her parting thought: 'I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a healthy straight relationship.'"

This is exactly what I worry about with gays raising kids. A huge amount of what kids learn about the world comes from mirroring the behavior of their parents. If parents are alcoholics, kids are much more likely to be alcoholics. If they are smokers, kids are more likely to be smokers. Now, there is one difference: I do believe that a majority of people who identify as homosexual were born that way, and trying to be anything else would be difficult in the extreme for them. (I think there is also another group that could go either way, and for various reasons, choose to identify as homosexual. But perhaps that's a topic for another day.) BUT -- kids mirror what they see in the home. And if they see two mommies or two daddies, that is going to be "normal" for them, no matter how much the mommies or the daddies tell them that their family is different. They are going to see that as normality, and if they themselves don't fit into that mold, they're going to feel that they are disappointing the parents. (Just like homosexuals so often worry they are disappointing their straight parents.) I'm not a psychologist, but it is just so apparent that what kids grow up with is what they see as normal, even if they learn better later on. I myself grew up in a really warped and abusive family (not homosexuality -- other stuff), and even though I've done the therapy thing and observed other "normal" families a lot since then, I still fall right back into those patterns unless I really watch out and force myself not to. What you see is what you learn is normal!

I don't know what the answer is here. I am not at all calling homosexual parents "perverts," because research has shown for a long time that most pedophiles are heterosexual. I believe homosexuals when they say they just want to be parents, and I feel for them.

But what is in the best interests of children? Unfortunately, we will not know the answer to this until about 20 years from now, when large numbers of children who have been in this situation grow up and start their own families. I just hope they are not as damaged as I fear some of them may be.

Homosexuals cannot see that they are denying the child it's right to a normal childhood with both a mother AND a father.

They've reduced the child's right to have what he/she needs to be emotionally complete because they're blinded with selfishness. Your sexual preference should not outweigh the rights of a child to have a complete normal family environment. Think of the child and what would be best for child!

Damn! people are selfish!

I feel the same way for children that have their lives ripped apart because one parent or the other selfishly put their own wants needs desires before those of their children and get a divorce for selfish reasons! Should be a capital crime to spiritually and emotionally torture a child like that. /rant.

10
posted on 12/16/2004 2:44:05 AM PST
by DirtyHarryY2K
(Perversion is not a civil right.)

...because research has shown for a long time that most pedophiles are heterosexual

You may want to reconsider the 'research' you cite. The 'most' that you cite is similar to the flawed 'most' money argument cited in the tax cut debate e.g. the rich get more than the poor -probabilities don't work that way. At best, using the model you cite which really compares homo to hetero and does not identify pedophilia rate within each group -it could be said that most humans are heterosexual.

The percentage of the homosexual population that are pedophiles is greater than the percentage of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles. A child is more likely to come into contact with a pedophile if coming into contact with a homosexual.

I have a book called Out of Control by Paul Thibedeaux (IIRC) . It's about the CPS/child welfare industry .The book cites stats that claim while 2.5-5% of the population is exclusively or primarily homosexual, about 30% of children raised by same-sex couples wind up homosexual themselves.(Sorry I can't give an exact quote or page number ; I just moved and most of my books are packed).

A win-win for the nanny state. The abused children need counseling and Child Protective Services, and the public will quickly give the green light for the state to start intruding further into the child-rearing of all (since they can't single out gays in the statutes).

If you haven't yet, please check out some of EdReform's links that are posted above. A mine of information about the causes, effects and dangers of homosexuality, and also about the fact that there is absolute no proof that homosexuality is inborn (despite the best efforts of "gay" researchers). Add to that the tens of thousands of former homosexuals - there is hope for people caught in the "gay" life.

18
posted on 12/16/2004 7:30:53 AM PST
by little jeremiah
(What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)

because research has shown for a long time that most pedophiles are heterosexual

Any rational review of those "studies" quickly show them to be bogus. How can a male adult's molestation of a male child not be considered a homosexual act? If the adult male is committing same-sex molestations, how can he be considered heterosexual, and not homosexual or at least bi-sexual? The "professionals" doing those studies simply defined the terms in the most PC way possible, to get the results that they wanted. That's not a scientific study, that's a promotional stunt, pushing a slanted view. Apparently it has worked well, since so many others also "understand" it they way that you do.

Thanks for these remarks. Seems to me I recently read an article (it was about the boy Dirksing (sp) who was sexually brutalized by two homosexual men)that stated that while homosexuals comprise only 1 to 2% of the population, they are responsible for about 30% of the sexual crimes committed against children.

Such confusion in the minds of children raised by homosexual partners should cause grave public concern. However, several professional health and counseling associations have published statements favoring the homosexual lifestyle and their adoption of children in an expression of what some have called "scientific activism."

The infiltration of the 'professional' medical and scientific associations by homosexual activists was ( and continues to be ) part of a well planned and well financed campaign to redefine homosexuality as normal. They started by infiltrating the American Psychiatric Association, with the goal removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Forcing the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the homosexual community's greatest achievement. It permitted them to claim that "homosexuality is normal" and set the stage to present this "normalcy" to the general public via a well planned media campaign ( outlined in 'The Overhauling of Straight America' ), and to kids in the public schools via Kevin Jennings' GLSEN. Kids as young as kindergarten age are now being indoctrinated with "homosexuality is normal" propaganda.

It wasn't science, but rather pro-homosexual activism that was, and continues to be, the primary force behind policy changes and the politically correct statments made by the APA and the majority of the other "professional" medical and scientific organizations.

Thank you (and the others who replied to me) for stirring me to actually look up some information from reliable sources on this matter. The following is from a very interesting article from UC Davis:

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified  fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

You can take or leave this information, as you prefer. I am not pushing any particular agenda; I am interested in the truth, whatever that may be. I do, however, find "studies" done by places that have an agenda to be suspect until proven otherwise.

If you can't find ONE mainstream source to back up your point of view, then I will continue to regard UC Davis as a reasonable source.

Hetty, what homo-sexual person with preferences for young children would submit to a study, let alone one that would not give them preferential treatment (like they can expect at UCDavis)?

Heck, what similarly-minded hetero- would?

The only fair and rational study is to look at those convicted, and the gender of their victim/s. When you look at those numbers, you get a far different picture. This way you avoid the premeditated tainting of a study.

Again, I have to ask: How can anyone look at a report of a male adult molesting a male child (or female/female) and not call it a homosexual act? And if that adult is committing a homosexual act, then how can you avoid labeling them as homosexual (or at least bi-sexual)?

You asked: Hetty, what homo-sexual person with preferences for young children would submit to a study, let alone one that would not give them preferential treatment (like they can expect at UCDavis)?

Back to me: Obviously, part of what I posted from UC Davis was ignored in the rest of the verbiage. Here it is again:

Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified  fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994).

Now, if you are just going to get on your high horse and say that this study is "tainted," you can stop reading right now, but if not, please note that this doctor did this study by going through ALL of the charts on sexually abused children in one locale for one year. She did not separate them out some way, she just picked a locale and went through ALL of the charts there. Of the 352 charts she looked at, 269 had previously *identified* adult molesters. Of those who were *identified* in this way, a grand total of 2 of them were gay or lesbian adults. Meaning that they were adults who self-identified as gay or lesbian in their relationships with other adults.

So. We know that the good doctor did not go around asking the molesters if they were gay or straight; she just wrote down what had already been identified by other people as to who was gay and who was straight. Unless you are going to say that she outright lied, we have to say her data is okay. Now, as to whether that data was tainted by lies from the molesters, I suppose it's possible, but what reason would they have to lie about that? They might lie as to whether they had committed the molestation, as that would serve them by keeping them out of prison, but there is no reason I can see for them to lie about their sexual orientation.

As to your question about whether we must necessarily call abusers homosexual if they are committing same-sex sexual abuse, that is not an unreasonable question. However, according to what I have been reading the last few days, there are two basic kinds of "pedophiles." One kind just takes advantage of a specific situation, and might not have ever committed a sex crime before. An example of that would be a stepfather abusing his wife's daughter (a very common scenario, BTW, leading me to the conclusion that divorced mothers with underage daughters should never remarry until the girls are out of the nest). The other kind of pedophile, the kind that really deserves the name, is basically sexually fixated on kids and kids only (rather than adults), and this kind of pedophile often does not care what sex the child is. Boy or girl, it really doesn't matter to them as long as the child is available. It is the "childness" that gets them excited rather than the gender of the child.

As for whether we must necessarily identify a homosexual act as coming from a homosexual, that is not unreasonable ... except that if you look at the study numbers, only two of 269 self-identified as gay. (And you must admit that two guys trying to adopt a child would obviously self-identify as gay.) I wish I had the rest of the numbers from the study, but I'll bet you all the tea in China that a number of the children (though not the majority) were boys who were molested by men. Do you see the issue? If only two owned up to being gay, then the rest must be living heterosexual lifestyles the rest of the time (when they're not molesting children). So how on EARTH can you pre-identify them? You can't!

I do find it interesting and rather discouraging that most of the posts I see here on FR regarding child molestation are centered on the (admittedly heinous) possibility of homosexuals molesting children, rather than the far more common scenario of adult males molesting female children. We are failing to see the forest because we are staring at one little tree.

And BTW, I'd like to point out that if you read my original post, you will see that I am not at all in favor of children being adopted by gays. However, that is because I think it will just screw up their concept of male/female relationships and cause them problems with their relationships in future, not because I am worried about the children being molested in any greater numbers than if they were adopted by heterosexual parents.

Because adults have the power to choose what they do and don't want to do. If it is "perverted" (whatever that means), it is of their own free will, and as long as they don't involve me in it, I don't care. Children, OTOH, have little or no voice in what happens to them. In addition, the latest, and very recent, fruit fly research indicates strongly that homosexuality in the animal kingdom (and thus, very possibly, also in humans) is caused by errant genes rather than upbringing or experience. Do a search on "fruit fly" at Google or read this article from the Independent: Sexuality determined by nature or nurture? Fruit fly gives the answer.

One can find this or that "scientific" finding being touted as the proof of a gay gene almost quarterly for the last twenty years. Let's not make any mistakes about this...your evasion about being attracted to children is stark testament to the fact that "popular culture" wants to find a way to absolve homosexuality of its moral blemish, and will be more than happy to provide an "anecdote of the week" to keep the faithful satisfied.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.